Talking about someone's supposed emotional motivation (hatred) is not relevant to historical inquiry. In any case, I didn't hear any hatred in the interview with Charles Krafft, who was pretty calm and factual in describing his mental processes. The attribution of hatred to Krafft ultimately depends on accepting the holocaust narrative and is thus reasoning in a circle.

First it's important to hear his own words. He says he is out "to push buttons". He certainly pushed mine - I'm a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust, many family members. The question as to whether his art should be shown or not hinges on whether a piece of art can be part of a hate crime. In this case, this man appears to have hatred in his soul. It doesn't matter if he hates Jews or Aleutian Islanders or Irish nuns. He hates, plain and simple, and is out to do damage. On balance, understanding that art almost must break rules, must be revolutionary, and must be honest, nevertheless humanity is better off if this man's "work" is left to the department of sanitation to dispose of.

I think his art should stay if it is in galleries. people go through phases and change he may get more correct info, and change his mind like you suggested. he is still human and made a mistake

Then there is that EVIL Red Cross and their misleading statistics from WW2:
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/official-red-cross-records-show-holocaust-was-a-fraud/38006/

And all the news that is FIT to print: http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/six-million-jews-1915-1938-hd

They've been talking about the suffering 6 million since 1915?

Why does Studio 360 need to give free publicity to a holocaust denier? There are millions of talented artists doing real meaningful work who can benefit from media exposure, rather than wasting it on insulting ignorance. If I hear another show with any kind of a similar theme I will cancel my support for NPR.

I'm very glad you recommended that he go to a Dr. There is really something wrong with him if he thinks the Holocost never happened. It's happening now in Africa and other countries. It's one this to use such horrible images to keep a reminder of how horrible we humans are to one another then want to act as if it never happened

Krafft's work is an evident example of artistic genius being wielded by a very fallible person, Before we indulge ourselves too much in our sense of "shock & betrayal", we ought to remember that we actually are blessed by our ignorance of what most artists are like as people. The drug addiction & violent history of Miles Davis might color the way we hear his music. Does it make the music worthless? Hitler’s artistic tastes were entirely biased toward mediocrity & Fascists condemned individual creative impulse. If Krafft's work contained an underlying white supremacist motivation, his execution is pretty crumby. I agree w/some of the previous posts; the Nazis would have branded Krafft's work as "degenerate".

I'm an atom denier. I'd like some physicists to drop some proof in front of me so that I can be convinced. While we're at it... I "just don't buy" the whole electromagnetic spectrum thing.

What do I think of Charles Kraft's artwork and/or Charles Kraft? You have GOT to be kidding me. Simply put-- my jaw dropped when I listened to this ignorant fool. What historical research is this fool looking at? Art is expression and clearly this man is expressing what he wants to express but to DENY the Holocaust is absolutely, unequivocally stupid, wrong, and yes, evil. My family came from Eastern Europe and Lithuania/Russia and most of them left well before WWII but many of my extended family were killed in the Holocaust. Has he visited the concentration camps? The only one I have personally visited is Dachau in Germany and I can assure you they didn’t set it up as a mock- site.

Thank you for suggesting he may want to see a psychiatrist. He needs much help because it is people like this and ignorance like this that breeds ignorance and denial and harms society, particularly our youth today who have no idea about much of this history.

What a stupid, stupid, sad man- shame on him.

Sculpt whatever you want to sculpt, but how dare you deny history in any form- that is so dangerous.

Isn't it interesting that so-called 'Holocaust denial' is a crime - when in fact the Professor Robert Faurisson challenge remains standing: 'Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz!'
Now don't let yourself get upset by this challenge but take it up and do what to date no-one has done - the murder weapon does not exist...
Fredrick Toben
Adelaide
Australia

What I heard was a man confused by the blowback from his ideas which he feels are arrived at honestly and by critical thinking. As a therapist I would suggest he do more research, especially the documented evidence from Genral Dwight D. Eisenhower and those under his command. He ordered his officers to enter the concentration camps with troops and film equipment to have visual evidence of what happened to the 12 million people murdered by the German military and of those that were being prepared for execution. And to also have his commanders as official witnesses, unimpeachable witness with visual evidence that is also unimpeachable because Eisenhower knew there would be deniers foloowing the war. Who knew that more than 60 years after the end of the war people can find reasons to deny what happened? My father and his brothers were all part of WWII -- it happened. I have met surviors of the camps. It happened. Mr. Krat needs to look within himself and see truth for what it is and decide what and how to make sense of his beliefs. His art will take a hit for his beliefs. But as a human being he should look at how his beliefs influence other people and touch those other lives, and to honor the past and those who lived through and died at those camps. What happened in Germany should NEVER AGAIN happen in our world.

He is welcome to believe what he believes - this is America, after all. If you ignore his ignorant statements, he does make some valid points. No matter how evil the Nazi party and Hitler may have been, they themselves THOUGHT they were doing the right thing and aside from all of that - there could be some beauty to be found, even in their lives. We cannot simply hide artwork like this (i'd dare compare it to Nazi book burning) but rather, we should display it and explain how damaging and hurtful and 'wrong' it is.

Don't like his art? Then don't support it, don't keep it in the galleries... and if you own his artwork...physically destroy it if you so wish. Does that solve the problem? Does that FIX the outrage and indignation you feel? My guess is...NO. Yet, as he is an American and he is an artist, he has the right to express his opinions and explore his experience with his beliefs and he, like anyone, can reconsider his beliefs and change. The public can push back but, the sculpture stands as it stands, it does not change although our perception of the artist might. I understand the galleries are feeling that Mr. Krafft hasn't kept his end of the contract and have cost/lost them money, but they ARE gallery curators and should be quite used to the speculative nature of the "artist lottery".

Has anyone noticed, with the Hitler teapot, you can s his yes as either open or closed...?
See them as open, and he is the demonic extremity we all expect, see them as closed, and he is suddenly strangely human and sympathetic...
Don't know if that's deliberate but either way, as a stand alone piece, I've got to say I reckon it's pretty good...
As for the artist's personal views, doesn't worrying about what he really thinks belong to people who read the label at the side before they look at the work? Surely you should engage with the work and what it means to you first?
And if we're worried about a teapot covincing people to convert to neo-nazism then these are truly worrying times...

My, my....how outrageous can we be? Especially when our own myths are rampant in our school curricula....really: the first Thanksgiving; genocide of native peoples; Trail of Tears etc. etc. Many of us in America live in denial and we become outraged with a Holocaust denier? We've become crybabies who don't stand for truth and reality but rather truth as it supports our lives. Consider a line from Judge Judy: "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true." How about a bit of knowledge-based decision making?

The last line in my previous comment was suppose to read:

<<< --- But, BTQ – so, what do you do when you find your favorite suit doesn't fit? Well, if it belongs to you, you have more options than if it doesn't. --- >>>

what would one say to an artist whose work denied climate change, or evolution, or racial or sexual bias, or how about supporting colonialism? Or what would one say to an artist who had some other deeply objectionable view they put forward in their work such as homophobia? Simply wring one's hands? Show the work. Explain the views of the artist. Put it in context. Let the viewer decide. Charles Krafft: the greatest White Nationalist artist in the world.
Wouldn't be subject matter sought by many curators or museums.

What would one say to or about an artist who was denying climate change, or evolution, sexual or racial bias? Or an artist who derided homosexuals? Charlie is denying the Holocaust in his work. Many millions of people were eyewitness to those events. its infrastructure still exists. Show the work, explain the context, and the belief system of the artist.

The idea that someones livelihood should be taken away for not having a given belief seems outrageously bigoted to me. One step away from Torquemada. The last question in the piece basically asks; should the art now be considered indexed, suppressed or otherwise destroyed?
Many people today really believe that our countries need diversity while Israel should be an exception, allowed to be at permanent war with its minorities with our help. This is a truly odd racist belief that can no longer be sustained.

Late to the comments here, so for what it's worth.
1. Good thing they are ceramic, easily breakable, performance piece anyone?
2. I think we can largely separate art from personal belief with work such as Miles Davis, beautiful music, but his personal life/views left much to be desired. But Krafft's work is only interesting because of it's ceramic irony, kitsch, but only elevated because it's making a "statement" not because of some inherent beauty. Now that we know his real sympathies, it can only be kitch and should be curated as such.

That gun looks pretty cool but it does ruin it for me knowing the artist has such ignorant views.

yes. His work should still be shown. If it was worth looking at before this "revelation" it's still worth looking at. Period.

<<< --- Its all sort of the question of suits. --- >>>

Or, well, that's what you can get when you judge art based on prejudice of any kind.

Museums are filled with representations of ego maniacs – whether its people proclaiming themselves gods, killers proclaiming themselves religious leaders or humans dressed as royalty. Visitors are legion.

If the art was ever technically good, it still is good. If the art got its "carajo" (as the Spanish might say) from some belief system (say worship of glory or satire of the same), why would it come as any surprise beliefs change and with it "taste" … in art?

What should one do when one finds the context of their meal has changed? Well, if sickened, feel the ill or heal; maybe warn others. Yet, has the meal context changed or the meal itself (the ingredients)? If one cannot stomach the art, so be it. Yet, this does not actually change the ingredients. Buying it under false advertising, well that's a whole other story. Clarifying the story, that's yet another story.

Or: Lets drag out Hitler to mock him? Lets drag out Hitler to worship him? These are very telling of the dragster, yes?

It is open to question whether one can actually know the mind behind the art. How does X know Y is Z even if X announces M is Z or M is K. Is X variable of mind? Does the evidence E of X(t.q), …, X(t.r) after Y really mean E of X(t.q-1) during the Y production is the most representative of the state of the mind of X?

Hate? So, should we go book burning because we don't like the book? Don't buy it if you don't like it would seem the book buyers call. Censor the library? What society do you want? Protest is a right in the U.S.A.

Does (not withstanding should) one hold art by the conceits of the artist anymore than one holds gold by its standard? Doing so is all rather at a whim. It might prove interesting (if not a bit informative) to watch how one (creator, spectator or curator) spends their values. However, witnessing doesn't mean you have to buy into it. If you happen to take a work as prodigal, you don't have to accept some other proclamation it is prodigious.

Perhaps, irony is its own reward. Who do you love to hate? How many societies, groups, people, etc. through history have not been tainted by some form of dislike (or worst) of the “other”. The “art” of war is prodigious from mega monuments to smallest artifacts – say jewelery (from where did most gold come)?

<<< --- But, BTQ – so, what do you do when you find your favorite suit does fit? Well, if it belongs to you, you have more options than if it doesn't. --- >>>

I was born at the end of WWII and spent my teens in Berlin. We certainly knew about the KZ's (concentration camps) to exterminate not only Jews but other "degenerates" as well, like gypsies, homosexuals and free-thinking intellectuals. From 1961 on, I visited many KZ's, starting with our "neighborhood KZ" (Sachsenhausen) and little by little venturing further East into the netherworlds of Buchenwald and Oświȩcim (Auschwitz-Birkenau) and crossed the iron gates where the maxim "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work will make you free) and the warning "Jedem das Seine" (To each what he deserves) had been laboriously forged. Saw the piles of gold teeth and dolls, the ovens with ashes and fragments of bones and the showers where humans were hearded in like cattle to be obliterated with Zyklon-B. In time, these places became melancholic museums where the Nazi horror was exhibited. I returned to the KZ's several times, alone and bringing in visitors and, years later, my son, to show them what they should never forget. These exhibitions take place in the context of where the horror took place, not in the antiseptic halls of city galleries. The first exhibitions are a warning. Exhibiting Mr. Krafft's Nazi iconography in the latter is promotion of hate. There is no art without ideology, and Krafft's is crystal clear. What the 1st Amendment has to do with his exhibitions in the public forums? Let him exercise his right to free speech in the realms of his own private world, but do not offer him the agora. Much of the people that fought for free speech were killed by the regimen Mr. Krafft glorifies and in circumstances he denies they ever existed.

I was born at the end of WWII and spent my teens in Berlin. We certainly knew about the KZ's (concentration camps) to exterminate not only Jews but other "degenerates" as well, like gypsies, homosexuals and free-thinking intellectuals. From 1961 on, I visited many KZ's, starting with our "neighborhood KZ" (Sachsenhausen) and little by little venturing further East into the netherworlds of Buchenwald and Oświȩcim (Auschwitz-Birkenau) and crossed the iron gates where the maxim "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work will make you free) and the warning "Jedem das Seine" (To each what he deserves) had been laboriously forged. Saw the piles of gold teeth and dolls, the ovens with ashes and fragments of bones and the showers where humans were hearded in like cattle to be obliterated with Zyklon-B. In time, these places became melancholic museums where the Nazi horror was exhibited. I returned to the KZ's several times, alone and bringing in visitors and, years later, my son, to show them what they should never forget. These exhibitions take place in the context of where the horror took place, not in the antiseptic halls of city galleries. The first exhibitions are a warning. Exhibiting Mr. Krafft's Nazi iconography in the latter is promotion of hate. There is no art without ideology, and Krafft's is crystal clear. What the 1st Amendment has to do with his exhibitions in the public forums? Let him exercise his right to free speech in the realms of his own private world, but do not offer him the agora. Much of the people that fought for free speech were killed by the regimen Mr. Krafft glorifies and in circumstances he denies they ever existed.

Well, I think my parents would have wished the holocaust never happened. My mother was born and grew up in Oświęcim, Poland. My grandmothers home was right across the tracks where they brought in people on cattle cars. Later to be renamed Aushwitz. Both parents were in forced labor camps, both suffered greatly. Both were Catholic. It always amazes me at the level of ignorance people like this show. I love that we have the right to free speech in this country. It allows people like this to show their true lack of intelligence, ignorance and stupidity.

If Der Fuehrer ever laid eyes on that teapot, Krafft would be in Dachau faster than you could say "Entartete Kunst!".

Some Nazi.

I would never come to see his work because it's sh-t to begin with. Now I would never come to the museum that shows his stuff. I would never buy a Ford or like Wagner's music, either. There'll be still plenty of great art and music left to look at and listen to...and better cars to drive.

Should we continue to listen to "Studio 360" when Kurt Anderson ends a piece about an artist who is accused of being a holocaust denier with a leading question as to whether or not the artist should still be allowed to exhibit his work in museums? Bad form Kurt Anderson.

"An audience/observer's ability to discern or understand that intent seems to be the question." - I mean this respectfully, this is intellectual noise.

When you eat at a restaurant, do you judge the meal based on the story you make up about the chef's intent? No, you judge the meal itself. If you order soup and are given a bowl of hot water, do you think it's delicious because of the story surrounding it? No, it's a bowl of hot water. A paid critic can tell you it's more than that, but so what? They'd be wrong.

We can make up a story or tell ourselves we're bad people because we had the wrong story, or how dare the artist lie to us, etc. The fact is it was a Hitler teapot, it is a Hitler teapot, it will be a Hitler teapot.

I love this article because it illustrates the visual art mine field we've gone into, and the smartest amoung us have lead the way. The trouble started decades ago, and now we have a multitude of objects in muesums scattered around the world that are more hot water than soup. We deserve better.

The comments by your radio presenter I heard on radio recently betray a sophomoric understanding regarding art. It is the role of the artist to express inspiration and point of view truthfully, honestly. It is the role of the art aficionado to appreciate with discernment the fruits thereof. If one doesn't like the art they expose themselves to they exercise preference and move on. Perhaps the highest value of Krafft's work is that it forces us to examine our ability to understand, appreciate and uphold the first tenet of artistic expression - that the artist is the voice of the muse, the agent of Creation. Are we really willing to cultivate personal or cultural bias when we are challenged to uphold the right of free speech, regardless whether we truly understand the subtle intention of the artist? Does not the individual and the artist have the right to express an opinion or point of view? Isn’t artistic expression an appropriate venue for radical concepts? Lest there be any question, I am not a holocaust denier and I abhor the Nazi legacy, but I believe the artist has the right to express their point of view, regardless how abhorrent it may seem to us. It is our choice whether to engage, or not.

I appreciate the mention of Kara Walker. Using her words makes this more than an issue of agreeing with an author's perspective. If SAM or any other museum or gallery is buying his art for irony rather than celebration, they have every right to rethink the exposure they are providing him. Would SAM buy and display art that celebrated those who lynched African Americans? Let's keep the real issue in the forefront. It's not about agreeing with the artist. This man is celebrating Hitler and his ilk.

What about the opposite of this? Is one obliged to view or buy art because the artist has a belief compatible with one's own? Should I pay admission to view kitsch because the artist accepts that the Holocaust is true? It is irrelevant to me whether an artist or a baker or a candlestick-maker agrees with me that the Holocaust is true. Everyone, whatever else he is, is also a person. I do not like Mr. Krafft's art, but I do not care what his beliefs are. If he had a tattoo on his inner arm, I would still dislike his art. And if he were a spokesman for the ADL, I would still dislike his heart. I frankly think the less we, the general public, know of the private lives/view of artists---except insofar as these are contextual or thematic in the art---the better. I have beautiful art done by Catholic nuns; I have less than no use for religion. It is the art that decides me. I do not care for homosexuality, but I am reading James Baldwin, because he is brilliant and he writes like an angel and he is a brave thinker.

I remember, from a college art course called Visual Vocabulary, the idea that, as a prerequisite to approaching modern art, one must be able to trust two things: the artist's sincerity (i.e. he's not painting "$50,000" in big red numbers on a canvas, charging $50K for it, and laughing all the way to the bank) and the artist's skill (i.e. he hasn't put a totally white canvas with a white rectangle painted on it because he can't manage to paint anything else).

I no longer trust this artist's sincerity, since he deliberately lied. So it's back to square one for appraising his importance.

From square one, knowing what we know now, is his work worthy of notice?

I am an artist and high school art teacher. I don't go to see Mel Gibson movies and this feels like a similar situation. I wouldn't boycott a museum or movie theater, however, I don't want to see his work and how sad to be an artist with this very uneducated and hateful mind.

Art is about Choice.

Artists make choices in creating their work.
Museums make choices in what and how they exhibit. This isn't censorship; it's curating.

If currently exhibited Kraft pieces cannot be removed from museums, for contract or legal reasons, then new explanations of his "views," should be prominently displayed.

There is no dearth of artists whose works - and "intent" - ARE worth trumpeting. Here's hoping Kraft's idiotic perspective renders him irrelevant and ultimately forgotten.

Wait, I'm confused. So the teapot is a tribute?

In 2002 The Jewish Museum in NYC presented an exhibition titled Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art is a contemporary art exhibition accompanied by extensive education programs, forums for discussion, and a major publication. At the core of this initiative is a selection of recent works by thirteen internationally recognized artists, all of whom make new and daring use of imagery taken from the Nazi era. Employing the challenging language of conceptual art, the artists bring the highly charged imagery of the Third Reich out of the past and into the present, leading us to question how images shape our perception of evil today. - See more at: http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/exhibitions/MirroringEvil#sthash.9xSSnuul.dpuf
this exhibition would have generated more controversy and discussion had it not been overshadowed by the events of 9/11.

Charles Kraft has a right to believe whatever he wants to believe - there are many in our society with arcane beliefs - as long as he's not in power to promote the annihilation of anybody and that museum curators contextualize his work in the historical context to which it belongs. I think we have learned that by banning things we give them more power and notoriety.

"Art is about the object, not about intentions."

Actually, I disagree. An artist's intentions are often infused in their work. Their work has a purpose or a point of view. Speaking with an artist often reveals their intent.

An audience/observer's ability to discern or understand that intent seems to be the question. That's why there are critics, that's why we talk about what we looked at/experienced afterward.

Our audience-interpreter eye is influenced by our own history, our knowledge base and (thank you very much, Berger's "Ways of Seeing") the decisions exhibitors/presenters make. I remember the first time I saw Franz Marc's "Yellow Cow." I couldn't help but smile, and I felt this delight spin through my body. Then I leaned over to read the title card and saw that he was a German, born in 1880 and that he'd died in 1916.

Knowing a little bit about history, I assumed (and later found out it was true) that he had died in WWI. In that moment, my head and heart flipped from joy to a sense of loss. The playfulness and hope I saw in the piece was now coupled with images of mud, machine guns and the fear all those men at the front lines must have felt. I thought of the "flower of a generation, lost" -- all that potential, gone.

I still love the painting. But it's a love tinged with pain.

His art should continue to be displayed. The museum isn't celebrating his views - which would be cause for concern. Rather, they are displaying his works, which is now even more thought provoking. The museum should, however, be sure to share all the context surrounding Kraft and his artwork. Even if the latest revelation is disgusting. Unfortunately, the private beliefs and talent of artists, musicians, actors and athletes don't always align or emerge while we're appreciating their work. It's often after the fact. And that is what jolts us. It shakes our perception and connection with the person.

How is a Hitler head teapot a celebration of Hitler? I don't think the artist's delusion makes the piece any less ironic. It's a product of history, including the history of art. The question is, should the artist's ideology reduce the piece's market value? Well... I'd hope so.

I think the question Galleries and Museums should be asking themselves is would they have supported and purchased his work if they knew he was an nazi supporter before they saw his work. If its no then they have to figure out how to deal this work. I think they could put an addendum to his bio that what the viewer is looking at art inspired by an artist that is an holocaust denier.

Let's see: Andy Warhol does paintings of mass murderer Mao Tse-Tsung and people can't wait to buy them. But someone does art work based on mass murder Adolf Hitler and the sky is now falling.

I'm sure those folks who were murdered under Mao's regime said, "Phew, I'm sure glad I wasn't murdered because of my religious beliefs. I'm so fortunate."

http://youtu.be/PWCOjOj4RAU

There is no single, correct way to evaluate art. Artist's intent is one method, but there are other methods and they all have legitimate scholarly underpinnings. Moral criticism is out of fashion because we're all so tragically hip, but it can offer insights not available when looking at art from another point of view. It can be fun, and good for the brain, to stand before a work of art and ask "What would a moral critic say about this?" "A sociological critic?" "A historical critic?" The only thing that stands between us and the artwork is the philosophy we bring to the viewing.

Last Sunday night I listened to a fragment of your broadcast about the woman who objected at her dinner table about racist jokes. You invited parallel response. None of my responses were assigned reading, and none recent.
1] Les Jeux Sont Plait - Sartre wrote the screen play, and I missed the point, if critics are correct. I took from this that the hero had to do what he felt was right, at whatever personal cost. This has been an alabtross since.
2] Mother Courage: I took books to a remote summer job 1968 and this is the play I remember. Re-reading it this week, I missed the point of the play which I mis-remembered as MC making the best choices she could at the time, with terrible consequences.
3] On the flimsiest of recommendations, I watched Breaker Morant in 1908. BBeresford states this closed in most markets in one week, but has remained an icon in film history. I am still thinking whether I disagree with the filmmaker: This was a story of a powerful bureaucrat making a decision to sacrifice a small number of soldiers to preserve the lives of a larger number. Not unlike the decision to bomb Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Arguments ensue.
When I look back on the critical reviews of these [Wicipedia] I find that the world at large has contined to notice what I stumbled upon and remembered. These have been inspiration for how I have acted in the ensuing decades, and I am content. -Bruce Parker

Museums, like libraries should not burn books and should not burn or hide art. What they should both do (and usually do, notwithstanding public outrage) is discuss the work (I'm thinking "Piss Christ" and "Elephant Dung Madonna" . If the work contains hate, identify the hate contained in it. If the work is merely offensive, discuss who is offended by it. But if the work is pretty much universally reviled, because it is universally viewed as wrong or evil, make the public aware which will help the public never forget. If I were a private collector, I would not want to own such a creation. But if I were a curator, I would want to display Krafft's work in the full sanitizing light of the sun.

This is about BIRDSONG.

Hello! I was on your show with my fake Shakespeare (Snakespeare) sonnets a while back.

Not that that has anything to do with what I'm writing about now.

Do you know about David Rothenberg, author of Why Birds Sing?

He is a jazz musician who jams with birds. Really.

www.whybirssing.com

Thanks for your show,

Sally Fisher

Charles Krafft's work is all sick looking stuff.

I'm still wondering why anyone found this guy's
"work" interesting in the first place.
Really, all I see is pottery being clever,
and that is not enough. This stuff isn't even
close to kitsch - too boring. Using the nazi
imagery is merely sensationalism - and should
he be rewarded for that ? What is the big deal
about this stuff? Talk about being controversial -
who cares? Why? Now he'll be more popular
for his ridiculous comments. Good!

It helps to see an artist's work in the context of a larger body of their work, as well as the time and place in which they work. A Hitler teapot, no matter how condemnatory a rendition, would not be a welcome work in many places.
Intent matters quite a bit, but ultimately, the experience the viewer has is with the work, and frankly I find this particular piece just weird, with the vacant eyes, the cute little handle and spout which start to resemble devil's horns. Is he mocking Hitler? If so, he doesn't hold a candle to Mel Brooks.

The rest of Krafft's work tends toward the sort of phallocentric imagery many people find amusing when juxtaposed with the supposed femininity of delft china. I get the irony, but really, who wants a Charles Manson commemorative mug?

An interesting tidbit from his website - "During an Arts/ Industry Residency at the Kohler Co. Pottery in 1999 Krafft began creating human bone china memorials and reliquaries based on a formula invented by the British porcelain manufacturer Josiah Spode."

Would it make a difference if the Hitler teapot were made of china from human bones? and what kind of person does that? Not that it is, mind you, but that fact that he does this give me pause.

I've always said thanks for those art appreciation people who can "see" beyond the obvious, -specially what eludes me. But when those same people accept a work of art as "unusual" or "provocative", against their own sense of fairness and decency, -then posture as enraged after finding that the artist really meant what he/she presented as "provocative", -I call that hypocrisy.
Spare me the hypocrisy, please.

I'd be pretty amused if we eventually find out that the whole thing, including the artist's apparent pro-Nazi sympathies, winds up being a big performance art piece trying to get people thinking about how the meaning of artwork is related to the artist's intent.

Pretty darn bazaar "art work" ~ If you want to call it that, but more interpretive ideas seem to approximate ... . To each his/her own; I don't know the guy, and will not venture into his gallery. Why hide your motive for your particular creative effort? Can't imagine he's got much of a business, but there again "it's a free country". BUT? Who'd want to serve tea out of Hitler's head? I surely would not drink ~ yuck!!! If he fears for his business, then he knows he's got poor inspiration. Anyone can change ~ perhaps he needs to do a little research himself! It's pretty, duh, to deny the Jewish Holocaust, maybe he wishes to stay ignorant. You can invent a car, fly across the Atlantic, at the same time you can be ignorant/ignoring and lacking compassion. It is for each person to find compassion in their heart for every lost soul including their own.

Without knowing more about the guy, what Krafft's quoted as saying here is somewhere in the vicinity of "holocaust denial" but not necessarily so. He could perhaps be better described as a "holocaust revisionist," but it's hard to tell. And even if he is a "denier" - I would want to look into where he's coming from. Some "deniers" are more or less conspiracy theorists, and the equivalency that a lot of people draw of "holocaust denier = bigoted anti-semite" is not always the case. Do you guys know?

Also, it sounds like the podcast mentioned here reportedly has him saying "white separatist" stuff, but the claim that he's a "white supremacist" doesn't seem to be supported anywhere.

Maybe these distinctions don't make any difference to most people, but to me such playing fast and loose with the details doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the little lynch mob some folks are trying to put together.

If you're asking me to re-examine whether his art is "still interesting," tell me EXACTLY what it is he said that should make me do this re-examination and why it affects his art's "interesting-ness." So far this kerfuffle is telling me that the high art gatekeepers aren't the most rigorous thinkers and writers.

If people claim that six million Jews were killed by gas chambers in a German State program to exterminate the Jews, I guess I believe them. But one thing is for certain, anytime the State makes it illegal to question a proposition, chances are there are serious problems with that proposition. In Europe today one can be put in jail for questioning aspects of the so called "Holocaust." Just as one can be jailed for denying Allah in Saudi Arabia, one can be jailed for saying that only 5,999,999 Jews were killed in the "Holocaust." These types of laws exist to keep people from asking questions.

I appreciate both the story and the comments posted here. I too feel kicked in the gut as I try to wrap my mind around how to process this work, a work I'd once thought (mistakenly assumed) ironic, in light of Kraft's true leanings: http://www.charleskrafft.com/?p=253

Broadcast on the same day as this appeared in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sunday-review/the-holocaust-just-got-more-shocking.html?hp

I'm sure Krafft can work his way around this news but his patrons now have to keep his views and this news in mind at the same time - how will they manage??

I listened to this broadcast today on Morning Edition, during the same newscast announcing Sec'y of State Kerry's denunciation of Prime Minister of Turkey Mr. Erdogan's comments equating Zionism with Crimes Against Humanity (the same charge as that made against the Nazi Holocaust perpetrators at the Nuremberg Trial). My parents were Holocaust survivors. May they rest in peace., having died hoping that their children and grandchildren would grow up and thrive in a country and a world where Jews would be free to succeed without discrimination and that knowledge of the facts would forestall willful bias and hatred. It was a sad morning to hear ignorance and blind prejudice rationalized by the museum expert with whom Kurt Anderson spoke, struggling in vain to find some justification for the possible display of this art in the future. Maybe Seattle and the DeJonge (sp?) ought to donate their works by Krafft to travelling shows against Anti-Semitism, such as those that have been put together by the Museum of Tolerance (Wiesenthal Center) and the Holocaust Museum in Washington,DC. Ironically, there is a big gathering to celebrate the museum's anniversary this weekend in Manhattan. That is the only context in which these works should ever be displayed. A panel to provide context, as suggested by the interviewee, only dignifies Mr. Krafft.

Really? I have seen this guy's work since I was a kid. It is simple shock stuff created to make you think. Have you seen Kara Walker's work? It has one level. It is a vehicle for a dialogue. Speaking of vehicles, Henry Ford was an anti-semite but everyone still drives Ford. These "Artists" are little more than one liners who have a shocking product. It doesn't matter who they are in their real lives. This is has more to do with celebrity than it does with Art.

This is what happens when society values artists' "intentions" as a criteria for the quality and significance of art. A Hitler teapot fashioned as a protest piece is not offensive, but a Hitler teapot fashioned as sympathy piece is offensive? Art is about the object, not about intentions. Can everyone now please wake up?

fascinating story. I have often though about how my feelings of the art changes once i know the artists or something about the person. I certainly know artists who I don't like but still appreciate their work. Of course I see their personality in the work as well. Wagner has been mentioned in these comments already and for me learning about Wood Allen's marriage to his step daughter changed how I view his work especially the movie Manhattan. It put it in a different light

I think it is possible to separate the artist from the art, but it does change my perception of the work. After all I'm only human.

This is extremely interesting as the artist thought he duped people into believing his artwork was ironic satire while in fact he was expressing his true beliefs. And while I agree that artwork is affected by the artist's intentions I believe it is only true initially. That is until the artwork starts having a life of its own, where people's perception and appreciation of the artwork define it more then the intentions of the artist. After all what do we know of the true intentions of many bygone artists? We can only speculate what they were.

So while care needs to be taken in acknowledging this dark side to Krafft's beliefs, and how it shaped his work, I believe we need to continue seeing the ironic satire most art critics saw initially. After all, isn't that the best way to undermine Krafft's intended message while appreciating the art? In short his attempt to dupe the public has backfired and his life's work can now be appreciated through the lens of ironic satire, not because we were all duped, but because that is the meaning we, as a society, choose to give it. His use of art to express his unacceptable position on the holocaust is undermined thanks to our knowledge of his intentions.

A Holocaust denier is nothing but a thinly veiled anti-Semite.

I'm not sure what to say. Over the years many artists have had anti-Jewish (Hebraic) feelings and views. Take Dagas, obviously he couldn't be a holocaust denier, wasn't found of Jews, nor was Wagner.

But looking at Kraft's work for the first time, and being of Hebraic descent, I do see the irony in his work. Much of which I think and in my opinion is well done and does have a very strong political view.

But given my own insecurities as an artist, and being second generation, as both my parents survived the Shoa, I too have used Hitler's, Himmler's and their cadres in my artwork, but have kept the pieces out of view and shown only to a very selective group of people.

Mr. Detwiler makes a good point in stating that these works need to be explained so that the causal viewer can understand the various levels of meaning Mr. Kraft's objects (objet d'art) might have, now that we know what Mr. Kraft's psychological disposition.

Firstly, true Nazis would have hated this work favoring romantic images for their propaganda. I think the art and artist can be separate. Wagner wrote the wedding march and was a known anti-semite and became the soundtrack to the Nazi party. I was at the MFA in Boston that featured the work of Ludwig Hohlwein a early modern poster artist. While his images are stunning it was not even addressed that his late career he made Nazi propaganda. Krafft is going to sink his own ship the more his views come out but the art stands on its own as compelling images made by, in my opinion, a misguided person.

This artist and his belief system are separate and inseparable simultaneously. The work stands as social commentary and will continue to do so. His ridiculous views make it harder to hear the meritorious sentiments he also possesses, some of which he expresses with his work. Museums should still present his work, so long as that work comports with the curators' philosophies and so long it communicates a message they think needs to be heard. Just do not let him speak or appear at museum events. Anti-semitism, racial prejudice, homophobia, misogyny, and other forms of hatred and misunderstanding have abided in art for as long as art has abided. This is not a new question.

It is rather bizarre that curators did not discover before the intentions of this artist. Since the artist actively supports inhumane, violent and racist events, ideas and activities, exhibiting his work is a way of supporting his ideas. He is different from Fred Wilson for example, who has a very clear and humane point of view that encourages people to question history, perspectives and racism in a productive manner.